FYI, Citigroup Didn't Actually Want That Bailout

Author:

Proving yet again that in this country, we don't let banks fail even if they want to.

Citigroup Inc. executives, on the brink of a bank run in 2008 that U.S. officials believed could imperil the global economy, griped that terms of a taxpayer bailout would be too costly for the company. “Many people” at Citigroup opposed the proposal, even after the bank’s stock price plunged below $5, companies started pulling deposits and trading partners demanded collateral, according to the top U.S. bailout watchdog. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair worried the bank wouldn’t be able to open on Monday, Nov. 24, the next business day. The report yesterday by the inspector general of the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil Barofsky, lays out bank executives’ efforts to get a better deal during three days of negotiations in November 2008 that federal officials later dubbed “Citi Weekend.” Two months earlier, the bankruptcy of Wall Street firm Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. had sent global markets into a tailspin.

Citigroup Executives 'Griped' About Take-It-Or-Leave-It Bailout [Bloomberg]

News

[caption id="attachment_73871" align="alignleft" width="234" caption="Y'all can kiss this ear to ear grin good-bye"][/caption] In the spring of 2010, almost exactly two years ago to date, the New York Times reported that some of Vikram Pandit's top lieutenants had noticed "a new bounce in his step" and "a smile on his face," with one executive speculating that the Citi CEO's cheer could be attributed to the fact that he was starting to "see the day when he will earn more than $1 a year" within reach. On January 18, 2011, that day came. After essentially not receiving a salary since 2008, when he pledged to abstain from getting paid until Citi turned a profit, the board of directors approved "an increase in the annual rate of base salary for Vikram from $1 per year to $1,750,000 per year, effective immediately." It felt good. Really good. Know what doesn't? This crap. Citigroup investors rejected the bank’s executive pay plan, a first among the six largest U.S. lenders, amid criticism it lets Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit collect millions of dollars in rewards too easily. About 45 percent of the votes favored the plan, which Citigroup had argued would help attract and retain top talent, according to a preliminary tally at the New York-based firm’s annual meeting in Dallas today. While the vote isn’t binding, outgoing Chairman Richard Parsons said changes will be made. Citigroup Shareholders Reject Management’s Compensation Plan [Bloomberg]

News

Just because they unceremoniously threw him out on his ass doesn't mean the board wants to see Vikram go home empty handed. Vikram Pandit, Citigroup' ousted chief executive officer, will get about $6.7 million in 2012 compensation and will forfeit some awards tied to a $40 million retention package granted last year. John Havens, who resigned last month as Citigroup’s chief operating officer on the same day as Pandit, will get about $6.8 million for 2012 and also forfeit some awards, the New York-based lender said today in a regulatory filing. Citigroup is the third-largest U.S. bank by assets. “Based on the progress this year through the date of separation, the board determined that an incentive award for their work in 2012 was appropriate and equitable,” Chairman Michael E. O’Neill said in the filing. “While Citi will also honor all past awards that they are legally entitled to, there are no severance payments. Awards to which they are not legally entitled have been forfeited.” Citigroup's Pandit $6.7 Million Compensation For 2012 [Bloomberg]

News

Uncle Vik may or may not be getting a little something extra in his stocking, depending on how generous Citi is feeling. Vikram Pandit, who stepped down yesterday as Citigroup’s chief executive officer, stands to forfeit almost $33 million in cash and stock from a retention package unless the board gives him a payout to ease his exit. Citigroup formulated a plan last year that, based on the firm’s performance so far, would have given Pandit $19 million through a profit-sharing agreement, deferred stock now valued at $9 million and $4.6 million in options, according to the terms of a May 2011 regulatory filing and data compiled by Bloomberg. The plan required Pandit, 55, to be employed at the bank through various payment dates, most of which haven’t been reached. It’s typical for CEOs who resign to forfeit previously negotiated severance and to work out an alternative payout agreement with the board, said Steven Hall, managing director of Steven Hall & Partners, a New York-based executive compensation consulting firm. Pandit getting nothing would signal that “he stood up and said, ‘I’m resigning,’” Hall said. If he gets a payout, “then the question is, did they give him that in order to smooth the path to his resignation or termination? Or did they look at him and say, ‘You know what, you did a hell of a good job during a very, very rough time, we’d like to do something nice for you,’” Hall said. Pandit Could Forgo $33 Million as Exit Voids Retention Plan [Bloomberg]

News

Earlier today, we wondered if, in light of the news that Vikram Pandit had resigned as CEO of Citigroup, analyst Meredith Whitney's opinion of the bank had changed. Choice comments that Whitney has made about the Big C in the past have included: "Citigroup is in such a mess Stephen Hawking couldn’t turn this company around"; "Citi is like an old broken-down Victorian house"; and Citi “has no earnings power, isn’t going to grow, hasn’t been investable in four years." She also once told Maria Bartiromo that the only way she'd change her mind about company would be if she received "a new brain." Still, sometimes analysts change their tune when new blood is brought in and, like former FDIC chair Sheila Bair, perhaps some of her beef with the bank had been a personal dislike of Uncle V. Now that he's gone, is she seeing Citigroup in a new light? Not so much, no. In the wake of CEO Vikram Pandit‘s surprise departure this morning, Whitney, founder and CEO of Meredith Whtney Advisory Group LLC, issued a note cautioning clients to be wary of Citigroup even under new leadership. “Citigroup is ‘the incredible shrinking bank,’ and the least interest of the big four, in our opinion,” Whitney said. “No CEO will be able to change these facts in the near-term. It appears the board feels the same way, as they have appointed an unknown to the outside to the new CEO position, Mike Corbat.” [...] On Tuesday, the stock has wavered between gains and losses on heavy trading volume in reaction to Pandit’s resignation. Shares are up 29% this year through Monday’s close. Despite signs of incremental improvement, Whitney isn’t backing down from her bearish stance. “Any seat in Citigroup’s court should come with a warning label,” Whitney says. Meredith Whitney: No CEO Can Fix Citigroup [WSJ] Earlier: Meredith Whitney Cannot Stress Enough How Little She Thinks Of Citigroup

News

FYI, Citigroup Didn't Actually Want That Bailout

FYI: Citi Will Need No More Bailouts

Citigroup Investors Don't Care About Making Vikram Pandit Smile

Bonus Watch '12: Ex-Citigroup CEOs

Bonus Watch '12: Retired Citigroup CEOs

Meredith Whitney: Citigroup Should Just Give Up

Sheila Bair Isn't Gonna Lie To You: She Had Actual Dreams About Burning Citigroup To The Ground Circa 2008, Though She Would Have Settled For Seeing Vikram Pandit Fired In The Middle Of Times Square. Which, If We're Continuing To Be Frank Here, She Lobbied Quite Hard For.

Just An FYI: "There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts. Period."

Citigroup To Keep The Layoffs Coming Next Year